Ilford sfx 200

[Aryel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

Anyone shooting sfx 200? 

Would you be able to share some images without filter? With yellow or red?

Is dd-x a good developer for it?

I am trying my first roll without filter at iso 200. Just wanted to get a feeling as to what to expect.

Thanks a lot.

[giannis]

18 hours ago, Aryel said:

Hello,

Anyone shooting sfx 200? 

Would you be able to share some images without filter? With yellow or red?

Is dd-x a good developer for it?

I am trying my first roll without filter at iso 200. Just wanted to get a feeling as to what to expect.

Thanks a lot.

Did you get the film already? If you're interested in infrared, the Rollei Infrared 400 has a much higher (and more extended) infrared sensitivity. I don't have any SFX pics at hand, but from my recollection, it was grainier than the Rollei and with less pronounced IR effect, either with filter or without. Without filter it's a normal B&W film and you won't notice any difference whatsoever. With deep red filter you'll notice some slight lightening if foliage (usually red filters slightly darken them). With IR filter you start getting the Wood effect but not super pronounced.

I can share some pictures of the Rollei is you're interested.

Here's skintones with a bit of folliage with the Rollei IR400 and a red filter.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Here's skintones with no filter (note, sharpness is due to the use of a "softening" filter, doesn't affect tonal rendition though).

 

 

Here is IR400 with a 720nm filter. This is the point where the Wood effect is clear.

 

I know that you asked for SFX and apologies for not having those pics at hand for direct comparisons, but here's my anecdotal experience with it for what it's worth:

•SFX with no filter is almost indistringuishable from normal panchromatic films. Practically you'll only notice a difference under tungsten light, where it appears a bit "faster" than other panchromatic ISO200 films.

•SFX with a deep red filter, effects on skin are more exaggerated compared to panchromatic film (also with red filter on), but not hugely so. The largest difference though is foliage which starts to slightly brighten up, which is in stark contrast with panchromatic film that darkens foliage with a red filter on.

•SFX with infrared filter starts getting distinct IR effect on skintones and foliage. Not as crazy as some IR films of old, but easily visible.

 

Now about the Rollei:

•IR400  with no filter, brightens skin up a tad and softens blemishes as if you used a yellow or light red filter.

•IR400 with a deep red filter, effects on skin and foliage are distinct and strong (especially foliage), almost like SFX with an infrared filter on.

•IR400 with an IR filter, the Wood effect on foliage is very strong and distinct, skin becomes ghost like, shadows become harsh (IR light is really scarce in shadows compared to visible and UV), and in general a typical and strong IR effect.

 

If I had to hazard a rough rule, I'd say SFX looks like IR400+one step down in filtering, in terms of skintones and foliage.  I.e., in very rough terms:

SFX+light red filter ~ IR400+no filter

SFX+IR filter ~ IR400+ deep red filter 

SFX+nofilter ~ normal panchromatic film, a bit faster in tungsten light

Edited February 14, 2021 by giannis
adding media, comparisons

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Aryel]

6 hours ago, giannis said:

Did you get the film already? If you're interested in infrared, the Rollei Infrared 400 has a much higher (and more extended) infrared sensitivity. I don't have any SFX pics at hand, but from my recollection, it was grainier than the Rollei and with less pronounced IR effect, either with filter or without. Without filter it's a normal B&W film and you won't notice any difference whatsoever. With deep red filter you'll notice some slight lightening if foliage (usually red filters slightly darken them). With IR filter you start getting the Wood effect but not super pronounced.

I can share some pictures of the Rollei is you're interested.

Here's skintones with a bit of folliage with the Rollei IR400 and a red filter.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Here's skintones with no filter (note, sharpness is due to the use of a "softening" filter, doesn't affect tonal rendition though).

 

 

Here is IR400 with a 720nm filter. This is the point where the Wood effect is clear.

 

I know that you asked for SFX and apologies for not having those pics at hand for direct comparisons, but here's my anecdotal experience with it for what it's worth:

•SFX with no filter is almost indistringuishable from normal panchromatic films. Practically you'll only notice a difference under tungsten light, where it appears a bit "faster" than other panchromatic ISO200 films.

•SFX with a deep red filter, effects on skin are more exaggerated compared to panchromatic film (also with red filter on), but not hugely so. The largest difference though is foliage which starts to slightly brighten up, which is in stark contrast with panchromatic film that darkens foliage with a red filter on.

•SFX with infrared filter starts getting distinct IR effect on skintones and foliage. Not as crazy as some IR films of old, but easily visible.

 

Now about the Rollei:

•IR400  with no filter, brightens skin up a tad and softens blemishes as if you used a yellow or light red filter.

•IR400 with a deep red filter, effects on skin and foliage are distinct and strong (especially foliage), almost like SFX with an infrared filter on.

•IR400 with an IR filter, the Wood effect on foliage is very strong and distinct, skin becomes ghost like, shadows become harsh (IR light is really scarce in shadows compared to visible and UV), and in general a typical and strong IR effect.

 

If I had to hazard a rough rule, I'd say SFX looks like IR400+one step down in filtering, in terms of skintones and foliage.  I.e., in very rough terms:

SFX+light red filter ~ IR400+no filter

SFX+IR filter ~ IR400+ deep red filter 

SFX+nofilter ~ normal panchromatic film, a bit faster in tungsten light

Thanks a lot, this is very insightful. 

Yes, the film is with me, already took a few pictures without a filter to get an idea what it looks like. I do not have an IR filter yet but will make sure to try a few shots with the red filter i have.

I am also considering trying out the rollei film, thanks a lot for pointing this out. Will check if i can find some locally. It sounds like a good film to try with and without filters. 

Thank you for sharing the pictures. I really find the one with the softening filter beautiful. 

Thanks a lot, your post is very insightful. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think giannis gave you a very good summary. I think SFX is kind of more like a black and white velvia, if that makes sense. It has a kind of amplified character, but otherwise it is pretty much a standard film. It can give you a bit of extra punch, especially when filtered.

Rollei IR is a nice film as well. I like that it is available in sheets, though they are a pain to load, as they are super thin and floppy. I took this shot on Rollei IR on 4x5 with a 500mm telephoto, and I think it was with a real IR filter. Certainly adds to the drama.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[giannis]

11 hours ago, Aryel said:

Thanks a lot, this is very insightful. 

Yes, the film is with me, already took a few pictures without a filter to get an idea what it looks like. I do not have an IR filter yet but will make sure to try a few shots with the red filter i have.

I am also considering trying out the rollei film, thanks a lot for pointing this out. Will check if i can find some locally. It sounds like a good film to try with and without filters. 

Thank you for sharing the pictures. I really find the one with the softening filter beautiful. 

Thanks a lot, your post is very insightful. 

Cheers, glad to be of help.

The general idea with infrared (or enhanced red sensitivity) films is that the more you increase filtration towards red, the more they stand out from panchromatic films. It's gradual, the more red (and the deeper that red) your filtration is, the more effect you'll get. No filter is at one extreme of that spectrum, IR filter is on the other extreme. If you plan on getting an IR filter, mind you that SFX and Rollei IR "need" a different kind of filter. Usually IR filters are named after the cutoff frequency in nanometres, i.e. most light under that frequency will be blocked by the filter. The visible spectrum is roughly up to 680-700nm, after that you have a short region classified as "extended red" up to 720-750nm, and after that infrared. Taking the film extended red/IR sensitivity into account, you should be aware not to use a cutoff filter that will block all light the film is sensitive too, and only allow IR light in the spectrum the film isn't sensitive at. In that case you'd end up with either a blank frame or if you give it tons of exposure (10+ stops) maybe a faint image.

Long story short, the sensitivity of SFX 200 plummets drastically after 720nm, so for best infrared results you want to exploit the region between 680nm (where sensitivity of panchromatic films usually plummets but SFX still goes strong) and 720nm (where sensitivity for SFX 200 plummets). So it's best used with a 670nm or 680nm filter.

The Rollei IR sensitivity extends (if barely) to 800nm. This allows you to use an even higher cutoff filter, like 720nm (R72) that will give an even stronger IR effect.

You can get some cheap IR filters of different cutoffs, to experiment with. No need to spend lots of money, even the very cheap ones work fine. Once you know what look you like, you can get a better on with the cutoff that works best for you.

[Aryel]

19 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think giannis gave you a very good summary. I think SFX is kind of more like a black and white velvia, if that makes sense. It has a kind of amplified character, but otherwise it is pretty much a standard film. It can give you a bit of extra punch, especially when filtered.

Rollei IR is a nice film as well. I like that it is available in sheets, though they are a pain to load, as they are super thin and floppy. I took this shot on Rollei IR on 4x5 with a 500mm telephoto, and I think it was with a real IR filter. Certainly adds to the drama.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Thanks a lot for sharing. This photo is beautiful and amazing.

@giannis, i took a few shots with a red (5x) this morning. I exposed at iso 25. Will order some rollei IR film in both 35 and 120 to try this out. I'll start with the red filter and try to learn from there.

Outting again now, with a yellow filter this time as the light is not strong enough anymore.

Thanks a lot.

[giannis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Enjoy the day, and share the results when you have them!

[Aryel]

I shot two rolls with a combination of red, yellow and no filter. A couple of conclusion for now:

-running after a baby whilst taking pictures at iso 25 is quite an exercise.

-i think with the red filter on, i need to be more cautious when exposing: on most pictures I completely over exposed the skin. 

-the red filters that are not overblown will push my printing skills. I got very high contrast (probably also due to the scene). I still need to check the negatives to make sure I did not blow some of them whilst printing the contact sheets.

-with yellow and without filter, the effect seems non existent or too small to see on contact sheet. Definitely some nice negatives added to the 'to be printed' list.

-Need to experiment more.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I quickly printed this one to check what it looks like. Not a special picture, just wanted to check what it would look like: the stones are red whilst the pool is blue... This was shot with the 35 summaron and red filter. Will try to print some more in the coming weeks.

Thanks a lot for the tips.

[Aryel]

With yellow filter:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M2, 35 summaron f2.8 (yellow filter), dd-x (1+4), printed on mgfb classic

[Aryel]

One thing that i really like is convenience: it has the same development time in dd-x as fp4. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M2, summaron 35 f2.8 (yellow filter), dd-x (1+4), printed on mgfb classic

[Martin B]

I shot both SFX 200 and Rollei 400 IR films correctly compared by giannis in post #2. I only used them with R72 filters to get infrared film photos - I have no experience how they perform with other filter types or without filter. Bot films need at least 1 overexposed to bring out white foliage in IR with R72 filter - The Ilford SFX200 is less sensitive to IR light and therefore needs better be overexposed two stops from my experience. Supposedly one stop slower than the Rollei film, the Ilford film is more grainy with the same film development in Xtol (1:2). Below a side-to-side comparison with both films taken at different times and different locations. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Above: Two photos taken with Ilford SFX200 and R72 filter, developed in Xtol (1:2). Taken with Leica M6 and CV 21/1.8 (top) and Leica 90/2.8 Elmarit Vers. I (bottom). One stop overexposed film (two stops would have been better!). 

 

Above: Two photos taken with Rollei IR 400 film and R72 filter, developed in Xtol (1:2). Taken with Leica M6 and CV 25/4.0. One stop overexposed film.  

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Martin B

[giannis]

I forgot to say, as Martin succinctly put, 1 stop overexposure is usually needed for those IR films. Usually I give them 2 stops of overexposure when using an R72 filter, and reduce a little bit dev times (10%), as a safety net because you never know IR light intensity, unless you have a specialised meter (don't think they exist for photography). At best, this saves some shots where IR light was less than I guessed. At "worst", when IR light was enough or even more than I guessed, it gives an even stronger Wood effect on foliage. So it's a win-win in my book.

On 2/24/2021 at 1:49 PM, Aryel said:

-Need to experiment more.

 

Your observations are correct Aryel, what you're describing in your post is what I'd expect. When shooting people, with a dark red filter, it works better to give an extra 2 stops for the red filter, and not the usual 3 stops. 3 stops is too much for infrared film and a red filter.

Also your comment about shadows: yes, shadows will be harsher with a red filter and really harsh with an R72 filter, much darker than what your eyes perceive. The reason is, that there is very little red light in shadows and almost no IR light at all. It's due to Rayleigh scattering, same reason our sky is blue and shadows are blue, and remember red is at the exact opposite end of blue in the frequency spectrum, and IR is even further!

Here's a mediocre shot (apologies for the scratches!) demonstrating the effect. Rollei IR 400 on medium format. The cutoff line wasn't nearly as sharp and the difference wasn't nearly as dramatic in real life, with naked eyes.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Aryel]

@giannis:

Thanks a lot for illustrating the shadows. It makes lot of sense. I will try with 2 stops only next round.

@Martin BB

Thanks a lot for sharing these images. I definitely want to try rollei ir with an r72 filter now. Already have a spot in mind (above a forest with lot of light). I just feel I am trying to learn too many things at the same time. So decided to wait a bit before going all the way.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Aryel
Sorry for the 'B'. I can't delete it...

[Pyrogallol]

If you try Rollei 400 infrared I find that 5 stops is the correct extra exposure when using deep red filters, any filter from 25A up to Leitz IR that is so dense that you cannot see through it.

Just bought a whole pack of 10.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!